Gay Marriage and the Church

April 25, 2009 By Shane Vander Hart

I had planned to leave this topic alone for awhile, but I made the mistake of picking up today’s Des Moines Register and saw this article about the debate that is going on in Iowa churches on whether or not to allow same-sex weddings when it becomes the law of the land in Iowa next week.

"Some of us are in a difficult situation. I’ve been supportive of same-sex unions and marriage and am unable to perform any … without consequences to our call," said the Rev. Susan Guy (of Walnut Hills United Methodist Church in Urbandale).

For her it’s an issue of her faith – that if church members follow in the footsteps of Jesus, who was eating with tax collectors and sinners, then one shouldn’t make distinctions.

"Some of us choose to remain where we are but we hope to help change happen within our church," Guy said.

Pastor Guy is responding to the desire of parents of homosexual children in her church to see their children married at Walnut Hills. I first want to be clear that I’m only referring to her in this post since she made this public statement. I have had the opportunity to meet Pastor Guy, and have worked with her locally promoting the ONE campaign with area youth workers. I appreciate the difficult position that she is in. We, as pastors, do not have the luxury of interpreting scripture in light of what is culturally acceptable however.

I believe that her analogy with Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners is flawed however. Did He spend time with those people, absolutely. So should we. Did He condone and excuse sin? No he did not. Numerous times he said to those with whom he is speaking – “go and sin no more.” Jesus Himself defines marriage in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 as between a man and a woman. He also spoke out against sexual immorality (Greek – pornea) which covers all sex outside marriage between a man and a woman.

Monsignor Frank Bognanno said he has heard no debate at his Christ the King parish. Twenty centuries of Catholic teaching won’t change, he said.

"I’m just telling them what the natural law is. It is prima facie – self evident," he said.

Marriage between one man and one woman is best for society and raising of children and not simply a religious argument, he continued.

"Even atheistic cultures hold to one man, one woman. The next logical thing is you are going to have polygamy. I would predict someone is going to file a lawsuit and say I have fallen in love with three women and we all want to get married. Since there is no law, why discriminate against me?" (emphasis mine)

So those who are having this debate are also part of a larger debate – where is our source of truth? Does the Bible impact our view of culture, or does our culture impact our view of the Bible? Has the Bible’s position on marriage changed? No. Has our cultural acceptance? Yes. Churches in Iowa will have a choice to make, either influence culture or let the culture influence and define them.

Shane Vander Hart is the founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts. He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, LLC, a social media & communications consulting/management firm. Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings. He has also served as an interim pastor and is a sought after speaker and pulpit fill-in. Shane has been married to his wife Cheryl since 1993 and they have three kids. Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA.

Related

About Shane Vander Hart

Shane Vander Hart is the founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts. He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, LLC, a social media & communications consulting/management firm. Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings. He has also served as an interim pastor and is a sought after speaker and pulpit fill-in. Shane has been married to his wife Cheryl since 1993 and they have three kids. Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA.

Comments

We're talking past each other in that it is one thing to sin. It's quite another thing to celebrate it.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 7 – “deprive” – could literally be stated “stop depriving one another” – deprive from what? Sexual relations. Why? Having sexual relations with a spouse is God's way of helping us avoid sexual immorality at least what we see in the context of this passage and Paul plainly states. It isn't tied to procreation. He didn’t say, but not if you, the man are sterile or if you the woman can no longer bear children. So exactly how am I taking this passage out of context?

I've provided some verses that leave you unconvinced. Can you build your case from scripture? Not from Augustine, but from scripture. You say Scripture is clear on this, but I don't see anything that states that either.

First, Paul didn't talk about about infertility because that is such a rare exception. This was written in the first century, it would have been rare for people to even know such a thing as sterility was possible. Sex was simply understood to be procreative. At this time in history, there was, in effect, no such thing as non-procreative sex. So really you are making the mistake of applying modern day attitudes where they don't belong.

Second, Shane, you said “Are their sinful people in the church, yes. Should that mean it should be celebrated – no.”

Sin should not be celebrated but it must be tolerated. Anything less is to meet sin with sin.

But when you start making declarations that certain behaviors are sins and they shouldn't be celebrated, you are acting as judge, and only God can decide what is a sin. We humans we can only guess as to whether or not a sin has even been committed.

It isn't our job to call somebody out on being unrepentant, for all we know maybe they are repentant even if they don't seem like it. For all we know there may have been extenuating circumstances, even in the most obvious case of sin this is God's call, not ours. Our job is to accept and love all our fellow sinners.

So why go out of your way to single out certain sinners for your ire? Why not go on and on about the way road rage is undermining our society? Or fret about the agenda of people who don't call their mother often enough?

Sorry, back to 1 Corinthians again, to put my point a little more clearly:There was no such thing an nonprocreative sex in Paul's time, since nonprocreative sex was a practical impossibility and all sex was seen as a procreative act. Therefore Paul could only have been referring to procreative sex.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 6-7, complete celibacy is seen as ideal, and even the idea of procreative sex within marriage is barely permissible.

Ok, Shane, you asked for my scriptural basis for the sinful nature of nonprocreative sex and here it is:

Paul wrote to the Hebrews (13:4) urging them “Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.” Here the implication is clearly that the marriage bed can be defiled from outside the marriage, by adulterer and from inside the marriage by immoral sex.

In Galatians 5:16-17 Paul says “Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh.”

Now a few words about 1 Corinthians 7. In the time of Paul there were no contraceptives, and, except in rare cases of sterility, sex was always procreative by definition. This is not to say it was always done with procreation as the primary intention, but that sex was inseparable from procreation in antiquity. This is not the case today, when effective contraception allows for nonprocreative sex. Paul could never have dreamed that a fertile couple could have sex without even the possibility of having a child. So to say that Paul could be talking about sex where there is no possibility of procreation is quite absurd.

Thus when the Corinthians ask Paul if they should refrain from touching women, it is a choice between one of two options: complete celibacy or procreative sex within marriage. conceding to the Corinthians that sex for procreative purposes within marriage is morally preferable to adultery, it seems that Paul concludes procreative sex is the lesser of two evils (see 1 Cor. 7:5-6, “Do not deprive one another so that Satan may not tempt you, This I say by way of concession not command” and 1 Cor. 7:9 “…For it is better to marry than be aflame with passion.”). He goes on to state that that he wishes all people were celibate(1 Cor 7:7). Furthermore, Paul goes on to say that “from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none.” (1 Cor 7:29)

Another point, if sex within marriage is not sinful, then why would Mary need to be a virgin in order to give birth to Jesus. In order to be the mother of God, Mary needed to be sinless, that much is obvious. So if sex within marriage is not a sin, why could she not have sex before giving birth to Christ? The implication is clearly that sex, even within marriage (apparently even for procreative purposes), would have defiled Mary with sin and thus rendered her incapable of bearing the Son of God.

That is all I have right now, but I will continue my study of the Bible on this fascinating issue tomorrow morning.

Hebrews 13:4 – you drawing a conclusion that isn't evident. That word “sexually immoral” pornea in the Greek is a broad word that includes a whole scope of things. That could be even looking lustfully at a woman. It also includes homosexuality, etc. It isn't obvious that it is referring to marital, for the lack of a better term, recreational sex. Also, a side note, the consensus among most scholars is that we don't know who wrote Hebrews for certain – it could be Paul, but I know I can't say that for certain.

Galatians 5:16-17 – This follows up Paul saying that “For freedom Christ has set up free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery,” (Galatians 5:1). There were those among the Galatian church who were imposing circumcision on the gentile believers as a requirement for being a Christian. Paul was saying don't go there… “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law, you have fallen away from grace,” (Galatians 5:4).

Then he warns not to use you freedom “as an opportunity for the flesh,” (Galatians 5:14). He gives a laundry list of things in v.19 that are “works of the flesh” you see pornea (sexual immorality) in there again, but you also see impurity… which can also mean a whole host of things, and sensuality along with orgies. He also lists a number of things that have no sexual connotations.

Again with this passage you are making an assumption. My contention is that God created sex, and it is good within the context of traditional marriage. By it a couple becomes “one flesh” which is not just a physical union, but a spiritual one. So to label it a “work of the flesh” I just don't see it.

1 Corinthians 7 – that would contradict what he previously said in verses 1-5. Look at the immediate context, verse 32-34, “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife (my note – that doesn't mean sexual, otherwise you'd have to apply that to pleasing the Lord which I think you and I can agree on that isn't the case) and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband.”

Verse 36, now talking about sex again – “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his bethrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let them marry – it is no sin.” It is no sin. Why are they getting married, because his passions are strong.

What was Paul saying here – basically keep Jesus first, even if you are married. Seek to please Him, even if you are married.

Regarding the virgin birth – first it fulfills prophecy. Also people had to be very clear on who the Father is, and it isn't Joseph. If they had sex while she was carrying Joseph that would have taken away the virgin birth claim. There would have been doubt. Also, I'll have to check, but I don't think in Jewish tradition they were fully married at that point. I could be wrong about that though.

I would not have anything to do with a church that allowed same sex marriage. The bible is clear on this issue.

Romans 1: 24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

First of all I feel silly, I ought to have known that the Hebrews is unknown for certain.

Second you are absolutely right that I am making certain assumptions. Words like pornea confuse me to no end. I usually see it translated as “fornication” but then again that translation doesn't work in the context of Hebrews since sex cannot be fornication if it is within a marriage? In this passage I read it as a contrast to adultery (sex outside the marriage) to imply that there is a type of “pornea” that can occur within marriage. Of course I might be reading it wrong, but if we take pornea a to be referring to something other than sex within marriage is it not redundant? Considering the many different shades of meaning for “pronea” maybe “recreational sex” might be a good translation.

The way I see it is from a more gestalt view of the Epistles as a whole, there seems to be a recurring theme that sex generally seen as something that is sinful and distracting from God. Take 1 Cornithians, it really seems like he is trying to have it both ways, like he is saying “It's morally superior not to be even be married, let alone have sex. But if you need to out of human weakness then go ahead and have sex within marriage.” It seems that any kind of sexual lifestyle is second best, falling short of God's actual Will. I also think that this is the way the primitive Church generally saw it, ie St. Augustine. Anyway, though I still disagree with you I am beginning to see your point better and it really is a matter of interpretation.

By the way, just so I am able to get your point more precisely, are you arguing that sex is permissible without any procreative intent, or are you going further to say that it is permissible to render procreation impossible? I wonder what is your opinion about condom usage and contraception?

Also, good point about the Virgin birth, I forgot about the prophecy. I still think I recall something about Mary needing to be a virgin in order to be sinless, though. I think you might be mistaken about them not being married. Since Joseph was considering a divorce when he found about the pregnancy, it would seem to me that he would have to be married to her before he could divorce her. But I could be wrong about that also because I really have no idea how a Jewish marriage worked back then.

I guess I have a hard time looking at sex between a man and his wife as “recreational,” The Hebrew word “to know” really describes intimacy. It is both a physical and spiritual union. It is one way that married couples express love for one another.

Regarding procreation – I think I've said that some have not had children for the most selfish of reasons. To clarify my position, yes I do think it is ok to have sex without intending to procreate. Regarding birth control – I have issues with the pill, IUD, etc because of the abortificiant qualities they have. Condoms… I'd say that is up for debate. That's my personal position.

Regarding rendering procreation impossible – some women have had to have hysterectomies. I know a guy who have had to have a vasecetomy because his wife has rheumatoid arthritis and she needed to go on medication where her rhumetologist said you can't have kids and be on this.

I don't think that is sinful, and I don't see those couples in situations like that stop having sex, because again it is a way to express love and be intimate.

Regarding Joseph – Jewish marriage, at that time, was done in stages. They weren't actually married at that point – she was bethrothed. They were not permitted to have sex, until after a certain period of time. Then they had a wedding ceremony and they would consummate the marriage.

I trend toward Strabo and Deacon Blue on this issue. Furthermore, as a Protestant, our overwhelming religious tradition has been to view marriage as a civil issue, and not a sacrament, from Luther on down.

As to what parts of the Bible to give more weight to (v. swallowing hook, line and sinker) I have always approached it on a ‘tiers of scrutiny’ basis – I would re-pose the (very good) blog question raised regarding the Supreme Court to read thus: “Is it proper for the Christian to have different levels of scrutiny for different Books of the Bible?” – i.e., strict, rational, intermediate, etc. I don’t read the OT and NT with the same level of discernment. Personally, I put Christ’s actual teaching at the top, the evangelism of the apostles in the middle, and the OT at the bottom. “At the bottom” doesn’t quite convey. . .I hope you know what I mean, a tertiary position, as it were.

Discernment.

I am imagining Shane’s response to be something along the line of discouraging a ‘cafeteria-style’ approach – which I get – but really, what is one to do with the massive amount of (marvelous and God-given) contradiction in the Bible? How is one to parse Christ’s message to not necessarily throw out all of the Old Testament, yet embrace the New Word? How do we reconcile Christ’s direction as to how to respond to our enemies with Love, with the overwhelming “snuff ‘em out” scriptures in the Old Testament? There is a lot of violence in the OT that is entirely obviated by the transformation Christ gifted us.

In regard to the gay marriage issue, I find the usual ‘shellfish’ argument, well, a rather limp-wristed (pun intended) defense. There is a strong spiritual argument in all of Christ’s teaching about sex that can be boiled down to one thing – just like sap in the Spring – to avoidance of ‘selfishness’ and ‘self-centeredness’ and ‘self-righteousness.’ Just as with alcohol, money and other idolatries and temptations that are not evil in and of themselves, but overly indulged in can separate us from God, it is the selfishness in sexuality that threatens our relationship with God and our brothers and sisters, however and by whomever applied – heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

I find this centrality in most of His teaching, including how to respond to one’s enemy.